Floor Statements

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time, but I also thank him for his leadership on behalf of veterans.

Mr. Speaker, the House and the Senate have already passed a measure that would pay for our troops in the middle of this government shutdown, and it's proper that we do this.

This morning, I had the privilege of meeting with 91 veterans from all over the State of Mississippi, who were in our Nation's Capital as part of an Honor Flight. When we arrived at the World War II Memorial, we found the entrance was blocked because of the government shutdown. Now, for these heroes of the Greatest Generation--those men who stormed the beaches of Normandy while facing German machine gun nests, those men who saw their friends die on Iwo Jima--even though these heroes may now be confined to wheelchairs, a few Park Service barricades were no obstacle.

It was my privilege to meet with them at the memorial that has been built in their honor. But the real way that our Nation pays tribute and thanks them for their service is for us to keep our commitment to them, our commitment in the form of VA benefits, of health care benefits, of disability benefits. Let us not fail those who have sacrificed so much for our Nation by failing to ensure that our veterans are provided the benefits and the services that they have earned. That's why I rise in support of this bill.

Our obligation to our troops does not end when a war is over, and we must ensure that our military men and women are provided with the care and the benefits they deserve both during and after their service. We have all agreed to unanimously fund this generation's military. Let us also agree to fund that of the previous generation's.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding, but also for his leadership on this important issue.

I rise in strong opposition to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The Obama administration has a disturbing tendency to favor international regulation over American sovereignty. The Arms Trade Treaty is just the latest example.

The Government of the United States was created by ``we the people.'' ``We the people'' established the Constitution in order to limit that government; but as a condition of establishing that Constitution, ``we the people'' insisted that a Bill of Rights be adopted, a Bill of Rights that would guarantee every citizen of our Nation rights. An important plank in that Bill of Rights includes the right to keep and bear arms, and it's guaranteed by our Constitution.

Under no circumstances should we ever agree to a treaty that undermines that right. This Arms Trade Treaty encourages nations to collect the identities of owners of imported firearms, which constitutes the core of a national gun registry.

The treaty also requires nations to report the data they collect to the United Nations. If that data contains information on individual gun owners, it would be a serious violation of privacy.

The treaty could also restrict the ability of the United States to conduct foreign policy and to sell arms to our allies, such as Israel.

Now, we've seen in recent months what happens when we rely on the international community to act on America's interests. Russia, China, and the rest of the United Nations should never be given veto authority over American foreign policy; and we should never, ever subject the United States Constitution to the whims of the United Nations. The Second Amendment is sacred. We should always stand up and protect it.

That is why I strongly oppose the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty and urge the United States Senate to reject it forthrightly.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding, but more importantly for his leadership.

The people sent me to Congress to help preserve liberty for future generations by limiting government and growing the economy. There's not a single law worse for individual liberty, for limited government, or job creation than ObamaCare. We must get rid of ObamaCare and replace it with a system that provides choice, lower costs, and puts patients in charge of their health care decisions.

Today, we're standing up for our principles, our constituents, and for Americans. We will pass this bill today out of the House, and I encourage my conservative colleagues in the U.S. Senate to take up this fight and stand with us to make sure we defund ObamaCare.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

It is no secret that our Nation's budget is bleeding in red ink. This House has approved a budget that will turn that around, and the Appropriations Committee has brought forth bills consistent with that budget.

I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey, and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio, for their efforts in meeting these budget targets and in eliminating wasteful programs but, at the same time, in preserving our priorities.

This amendment specifically deletes funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission, and I would like to address those priorities that are addressed by that commission. This is not a wasteful program. It has invested in infrastructure. It has changed the lives and the income of the men and women of that region, a region that I represent. When the Appalachian Regional Commission was formed almost five decades ago, it included some of the poorest counties of the poorest States in the Nation. Since then, it has achieved measurable results: the number of people living in high poverty has been cut in half; infant mortality has been cut by two-thirds; and students without a high school education have decreased significantly.

But the men and women of this region aren't sitting idly by, waiting for Federal investment to show up to solve our problems. We've used the Federal investment through the Appalachian Regional Commission and leveraged it with local and other State investments. In the last 4 years, the Appalachian Regional Commission has invested $360 million in that region. At the same time, over $1 billion of other public investment has occurred. What has that done? It's attracted over $2.8 billion in private investment, which has resulted in 122,000 jobs that have been created. This commission has made a difference.

No, it's not wasteful spending. The Appalachian Regional Commission is making a difference in the lives of the men and women and families in Appalachian. Because of that, I oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.

America has been blessed with an abundance of natural resources. Because of private-sector innovations, we've seen a boom in energy development both on private lands and on State lands. Sadly, due to the Obama administration's extreme environmental agenda, in these same years we've seen a decline of energy recovery off of Federal lands. The most prominent example of President Obama's prioritizing his radical environmental base over American energy development is the continued failure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

It's a sad commentary on the state of leadership in the modern-day Democratic Party compared with the record of men like President Kennedy. President Kennedy set out bold goals and then laid out ways of achieving those goals. He came to this very Chamber and challenged the elected representatives that before the decade is out, America would land a man on the Moon and return him safely back to Earth. America achieved President Kennedy's goals.

Now, given our resources from our friendly neighbors to the north, given American innovation, we should echo the challenge of President Kennedy. We should make it the goal of this generation that before this decade is out we become North American energy secure.

Now, there are vastly different undertakings between landing a man on the Moon and becoming energy secure, but the spirit required to achieve success in those areas is the same. The only thing standing between America and energy security for the future is an executive branch that's run by environmental extremists that are beholden to the wealthy liberal environmentalists.

Now, residents of Billionaires' Row in San Francisco can afford to indulge in fantasies of an economy run on windmills and solar panels. Meanwhile, men and women in Mississippi that are struggling to get to work know that it continues to break the better part of a $100 bill to fill their car up with gas.

We, as elected officials who serve the people in need of affordable energy and a thriving economy, must deal with that reality. That's why I support an all-of-the-above approach. It does include renewable energy; but it also includes recovering American fossil fuels like oil, natural gas, recovering American coal that we can now burn cleanly without damaging the environment, and expanding nuclear energy, including small modular nuclear reactors used in the production of electricity. If we do that, America can be energy secure.

Our friends on the other side have called for what they label a balanced approach, but let's look at the record.

Is their quench for new taxes insatiable? At the start of this year, they got $600 billion in new taxes due to the fiscal cliff bill that passed. In addition, they added another $1 trillion of new taxes, starting this year, for ObamaCare. A total of $1.6 trillion in new taxes have been added since New Year's. But before the ink was even dry, they began to call for even more tax increases. In fact, the budget that we're discussing here calls for an additional $2.8 trillion of taxes that will be paid for by hardworking men and women around America. Taxes like, if you sell your house, you'll have to pay an excessive tax on the gain from the sale of your house when you're in retirement.

What do they do with their new taxes? Do they take it and pay down the debt? No. Instead, they take these additional taxes and use it to spend more.

This budget is not content with ObamaCare that passed a few years ago, no. It expands that. I do commend our friends on the other side for at least showing your intentions that you're not going to be happy until every American is on socialized medicine. And this expands ObamaCare.

It also expands food stamps. At a time when projections are showing that our economy may improve, certainly we should see individuals moving away from food stamps and on to a job supporting themselves, but that's not what we're seeing. A measure of success of a society should not be how many people can we put on public assistance. The measure of success of a society should be how many men and women can we allow to help themselves.

But this budget does cut spending in one area. It cuts into our national defense, even more so than the President's budget that he submitted last year. So while we're increasing spending on things that would drain our economy and deprive our children of obtaining jobs, we're compromising the very defense of our Nation. And when does it balance? Never.

Mr. Chairman, I reject this budget and urge you to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, over 1,000,000 people have had their sight restored since the Eye Bank Association of America was created in 1961. Since 1983, each March has been designated as National Eye Donor Month. As a recipient of two corneal transplants, I am honored to participate this year.

In high school I was diagnosed with keratoconus, a degenerative disease of the cornea. From then and through much of my college life, I lived with the belief that I would one day lose my eyesight. As a junior in college, I was told I was potentially a good candidate for cornea replacement surgery. On April 25, 1980, I had my first surgery and the results were almost instantaneous. Two years later, I had another, equally successful transplant procedure on my other eye. I live every day with the knowledge that not only was my vision saved, it took tremendous strength and compassion on the part of two families to make it possible.

With corneas, the doctors are not concerned with matching by blood type, but they need to match by age. The reason is simple: the cornea does not need to wear out before the recipient does. So two families who lost a son, daughter, husband, or wife in their teens-to-mid- twenties made a decision under the worst of circumstances, and donated their loved ones corneas so that a stranger might see.

I encourage all Americans to register to become eye donors and inform your families of your wishes.

I urge my colleagues to work with their local eye banks and the EBAA to promote eye donation and its life enhancing effects on corneal recipients.

During this month, let us remember the donors and their families who have forever changed so many lives, including my own, for the better.

I do want to thank Mr. Ryan for his leadership on this budget.

Mr. Chairman, we've talked a lot about the big picture. I want to make it personal.

In the early 1990s, I lost my job in a corporate merger. For about 48 hours, I moped around, feeling sorry for myself; but then, one morning, my wife and I got up. We made a pot of coffee, and we got out a sheet of notebook paper, and right down the middle of the page we drew a line. On one side, we wrote down: this is what we have coming in. On the other side, we wrote down: this is how we're going to spend it. We shed some tears that morning as we made difficult decisions. The reason I tell that very personal story is that there is no question in my mind that, today, there are Americans sitting at their kitchen tables--with that same piece of paper, shedding those same tears.

Before I got here, I served in the State senate. I chaired the Appropriations Committee, and I worked with the Democrat chairman in the State house as we made difficult decisions in balancing our State budget. Families, State legislatures, small businesses around this Nation are making those difficult decisions. They have every reason to expect their policymakers in Washington to do the same thing.

I support this budget proposal because it does make tough decisions and balances our budget. I support this proposal on behalf of my mom and dad, who worked all of their lives and paid into a system, and their government made them a promise that said when you get to age 65, we're going to provide you with health care. Yet the actuaries for that system say that their government is in danger of not being able to honor its promise.

I support this budget on behalf of my parents because this budget says we repeal a system of unelected bureaucrats that will make health care decisions for them. I support this budget on behalf of my children and their peers who are entering the workforce, yet are facing job creators with an uncertainty of what's coming out of Washington. I support this budget on behalf of my two grandchildren, to whom I will not be part of passing on a debt that will jeopardize their future.

We hear our friends on the other side of the aisle say, Well, what we need to

do is raise taxes so that we can spend more. We're going to tax this current generation $1.5 trillion more. We're going to tax future generations so that we can spend more.

That is not the right approach. That's why I support this budget.

Mr. Chairman, we've heard the criticism, this is a game. Well, any family that has found themselves in a financial crisis knows this is not a game. I'm one of those families.

Eighteen years ago, I lost my job in a corporate merger. After 48 hours of depression, my wife and I woke up, made a pot of coffee, drew a line down the middle of the page, and on one side we wrote down, this is what we have coming in, on the other side we wrote down, this is how we're going to spend it.

In an economy when far too many of our friends and family members are out of work, there's no question in my mind that while we're debating this, there are families that are going through that exact exercise. Those families that are making those tough decisions in their family budgets have every reason to expect their policymakers to do the same.

We shed tears around the kitchen table that morning. Those families are shedding tears around the kitchen table right now. They know that's not a game. They expect Washington to come up with a budget, and that's what this bill does.

This bill says, Mr. President, give us a budget. Show us when it balances. Tell us when you have a balanced budget. We ask the President to do the same thing that American families are doing.

I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership in speaking out on this very important issue.

Our Declaration of Independence, our Nation's birth certificate, states that all are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among those are the right to life; but now, for 40 years, over 55 million Americans have been denied that basic right to life guaranteed by our Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court got it wrong with Roe, just as they got it wrong with Dred Scott. Now, I accept the fact that under our system of law Roe is the law of the land today, but I, along with many millions of people around America, pray that one day that decision will be overturned.

While in this body we've had much spirited debate over the right to life, there's one area where we have found bipartisan agreement, and that is that taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize a practice that so many of us find abhorrent. We must protect taxpayers from funding abortion. That's why, earlier today, I introduced legislation that would do just that.

Under ObamaCare, the Federal Government is required to sponsor at least two multistate insurance plans.

The bill that was introduced earlier today would simply prevent those plans from paying for abortions, thus making sure that taxpayers around the Nation are not required to subsidize the taking of life. Now this isn't new policy, in fact, it's simply an extension of longstanding Federal policy, and that's why I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Recently, President Obama said:

When it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us,

we must act now. Let's do the right thing.

This bill is an effort to do the right thing, to protect taxpayers from funding the destruction of the most vulnerable among us: the unborn child.

In closing, let's remember the words of the prophet of old:

This day I call Heaven and Earth as witnesses against you,

that I have set before you life and death, blessings and

curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may

live.

On this 40th anniversary of Roe, let us rededicate ourselves to choose life.

Madam Speaker, this week, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption is recognizing the individuals and families from around the country who've enriched the lives of children through foster care and adoption. I rise this morning to share the story of a couple who have dedicated their lives to providing not just a home for children, but a family.

Pat and Sandra Nunnelee, from Tupelo, Mississippi, had lived the American Dream. They married in their teens, and over the next 14 years had four children born into their family. When they married, Pat was working in a low-paying manufacturing job.

But he soon entered the profession of life insurance sales. He possessed a good personality and a strong work ethic. Because of that, he was a natural for the business, and his career advanced quickly both in income and in prestige.

Sandra had a love of infants and a desire to be a nurse. However, she decided to forgo her nursing education and her career in order to get married and then raise a family. Later, she did enter into nursing school. In fact, she graduated from nursing school the same year her oldest child graduated from high school.

By 1980, they were in their mid-forties, and they were enjoying the fruits of their labors together. Pat had become vice president of one of the largest life insurance companies in his State. Sandra was enjoying the love of her life--taking care of newborn babies as an intensive care nurse. They were enjoying a standard of living that neither of them had ever thought possible. In addition, empty nest was in sight. Two of their children were in college, and two others weren't far behind. In short, life was good. They'd worked hard, and they were nearing a stage of life when they could really begin to enjoy it.

But any plans they may have made changed in November of 1980 when a little girl was born prematurely. That month, while America was preparing to celebrate Thanksgiving, we were watching the peaceful transition of power begin in the White House, and we were watching an international hostage crisis. So, when the world is watching Presidents and Ayatollahs, who cares when a little premature girl is born? Thank God somebody did.

This little girl was born with numerous health problems, and the pediatrician's quick diagnosis was that this infant wouldn't live through the night and that medical staff should make her short time on Earth as peaceful as possible. At the conclusion of the shift, Sandra left her patient with the belief that this little girl would not be alive when she got back to work the next morning.

Much to her surprise, when she arrived the next morning for work, the little girl was still alive. She'd proven to have a strong will to live, but she'd been abandoned by her parents. So, after 3 months in the intensive care unit, her pediatrician observed to Sandra one day, We've done miracles for this child, but the one thing we've not been able to give her is a home. She has never had anyone to hold her, to rock her, or to sing to her. Over the next few days, Pat and Sandra became foster parents. She left her job, and the child entered their home.

Child number five.

Three years later, Sunday lunch was interrupted by a desperate knock at the door. Sandra had taken a leave of absence from her job to take care of this little girl, and she volunteered to offer child care to a single mom from the hospital where she worked. That young woman was having a great deal of difficulty coping with the many demands of being a single mom.

She desperately asked, Ms. Nunnelee, would you please take my baby.

Thinking there must be some kind of temporary crisis, the Nunnelees replied, Yes, we'll be glad to take care of your child for a couple of days.

The young mom responded, I don't want you to take him for a couple of days. I want you to take him forever.

Child number six.

Four years after that was another desperate contact, this one a phone call from the County Department of Human Services. An infant boy had been born with very severe heart problems. The doctor's prognosis was that he wouldn't live beyond age 10 or 12. His parents didn't want to keep such a sick child. There were no available foster parents with the medical expertise or the willingness to adopt such a child in that condition.

The desperate social worker said, You've done more than any family should be asked to do, but there is nobody else.

Child number seven.

That child has lived more than a decade beyond the doctor's initial prognosis, and while he still has some health problems, he has recently completed school, and he has moved out on his own. For the first time in 54 years, Pat and Sandra Nunnelee don't have a child in their home. Oh, holidays,

though, are filled with the noise of seven children and their spouses and several grandchildren.

In recounting their decision to commit to raising a second set of children at a time in their lives when their peers would be enjoying life, Pat loves to tell the story of a little boy on the beach. It seems a storm had washed several thousand starfish ashore, and as the tide receded, the stranded starfish were dying in the glaring sun. One by one, a boy began to hurl starfish back into the ocean. A cynical man observed his actions and commented on the futility of such efforts in light of the enormity of the problem.

You are wasting your time. You can never make a difference with so many starfish.

The boy simply hurled another into the sea and replied, I made a difference for that one.

These are true American heroes. Their grandchildren call them Mimi and Pat-daddy. Their friends call them Pat and Sandra. My six brothers and sisters and I are proud to call them Mom and Dad.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I rise in support of H.R. 6082, the Congressional Replacement of President Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan.

The President's lease plan for offshore energy resources is unacceptable. It would close 85 percent of our offshore areas to energy production and recovery. Just like the Keystone pipeline, this is just another example of an administration beholden to a radical environmental agenda.

We must be about safely and responsibly recovering American energy. We have available energy under our feet and off our shores. This plan does that by expanding offshore drilling into new areas, areas that contain the most oil and natural gas resources.

Our economy is still struggling. People are still looking for work. And this bill would generate $600 million in government revenue and at the same time,

put tens of thousands of Americans back to work.

It's time that we choose jobs and energy security over left-wing ideology.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a great man, Mr. William Raspberry of Okolona, Mississippi, who died Tuesday at the age of 76.

He was hired by The Washington Post straight out of the Army and worked his way up from teletype operator to the op-ed page. At the time, he was only one of a handful of nationally syndicated and widely read African American columnists.

And though Mr. Raspberry lived most of his life away from Mississippi, he never forgot Okolona. He devoted much of his time in retirement to the foundation in Mississippi that bears his name that helped children from at-risk families be prepared for entrance into kindergarten.

He was a model of how to talk about complicated and divisive issues in a respectful and civil tone. In fact, he once said:

Perhaps it was then that I found myself trying to write in

such a way that people who didn't agree with me might at

least hear me. Then I found they were talking back to me in

similarly civil tones. And it felt good.

His attitude would be a model for all of us that debate public policy.

William Raspberry was a fine man and a great Mississippian. He will be missed.

I want to thank the chairman for yielding.

Everything they told us when they passed this law has turned out not to be true: if you like your own health plan, you can keep it. This isn't a tax hike. Prices will go down $2,500 a year. It won't affect religious freedom. The list goes on.

I was disappointed in the Supreme Court's ruling, but I did note that the Supreme Court said it was not its job to say whether this is a good or a bad law. Well, the American people can answer that question.

ObamaCare is bad for health care. ObamaCare is bad for seniors. ObamaCare is bad for hardworking Americans. ObamaCare is bad for job creators. ObamaCare is bad for freedom. That's why it must be repealed.

I would like to thank the chairman for yielding.

I rise in support of the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act. You know, America's been blessed with an abundance of natural resources under our feet and off our shores. We have the largest coal reserves in the world. New technologies are making it possible to unlock vast new reserves of oil and natural gas. We need to do everything possible to safely and responsibly develop those natural resources because doing so will create good, high-paying jobs, and it will improve national security by reducing our dependence on energy from unstable regions of the world.

Higher gas prices are a cruel tax. They're a cruel tax on hardworking men and women who are trying to find a way to get back and forth to work. Higher gas prices are a cruel tax on seniors living on a fixed income.

And unfortunately, this administration is full of people that are pushing a radical environmental agenda that's hostile to energy development. They believe the solution is to force the price of traditional energy supplies to skyrocket so that alternative green energy becomes artificially competitive.

Alternative energy should be a part of the mix. But the reality is that fossil fuels will be the main source of our energy for at least the next two generations, and it's fantasy to suggest otherwise.

Now we do support an all-of-the-above strategy, but that all-of-the- above strategy also includes an all-of-the-below strategy. We support developing those resources that are below our feet and off our shores. That's why I am proud to support the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act.